AMP3083 wrote:Darl, just finished watching the vid you posted. Know anymore videos that go in depth? I'm very open to watching anything you got.

Hi AMP, glad you didn't leave the forum. Did you like the video? Are there any ideas with which you don't agree or that you find confusing?

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a good video on consequentialism – the philosophical framework that has been discussed on this thread-, but there's a nice one on utilitarianism. Now, although utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, I should warn you that what you'll find in the video is not exactly what Brimstone was arguing for. With that in mind, the video is OK, and it could help you understand, for example, the concept of net happiness. I guess that the next step would be reading Singer's Practical Ethics, which is also a good source of empirical evidence in favor of veganism.
On utilitarianism:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvmz5E75ZIA
Edit: this one is on the difference between deontology and consequentialism withing the vegan movement. It's not great , but it does the trick:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUKFHMHhv5E

But again, the best way to understand what some of us were trying to say, is to actively engage in the conversation. It would be good to know something about you, not necessarily you as a person, but your ideas, why you are interested in the topic and what you think about morality.

Hi everyone. Brimstone, thanks for activating me! I’ve been reading all of this, and I’m impressed by the level of commitment that I’ve seen from the people here. I’m interested in uncovering the root truths of this issue, and I can tell that this group shares this interest in earnest, so I’ve decided to chime in.

@Brimstone:
I want to fully understand your argument, so if you wouldn’t mind addressing some of the finer points, it would be greatly appreciated. You’ve stated that the objectivity of morality is “proved by logic” but this would require that logic itself be proven to be an effective means of establishing objectivity. Logic is a system concerning the arrangement of thought. It is wholly dependent upon thought, much like mathematics is wholly dependent upon numbers. There cannot be logic without thought.

Thought is a wholly subjective phenomenon. Thought does not exist without a thinker, and a thinker is necessarily subjective. Logic, being wholly dependent upon a subjective phenomenon, must be deemed wholly subjective, as there is no objective ingredient in its construction.

FIRST QUESTION:
How then, do you suppose that logic – an arrangement of subjective thought – is an effective means by which objectivity can be determined?

Next, you have stated that “we arrive at the correct moral actions by applying science and using mathematics to weigh harm against benefit.” The above argument about logic also applies to science. Science is dependent upon the wholly subjective phenomenon of perception, and is thus wholly subjective. We deem scientific findings “objective” when we have a consensus of subjective experience (i.e., repeatable findings); but no amount of subjective experience will produce an objective outcome any more than any amount of oranges will produce an apple pie.

If 183,000 observed experiments produce the same result, it is reasonable to assume that the next observed experiment will produce that result again – reasonable, but not logical; reasonable, but not certain. That which is claimed to be objectively true, must be certain.

SECOND QUESTION:
How then, do you suppose that science – a collection of subjective experiences – is an appropriate means by which objectivity can be determined?

Mathematics (numerical logic) requires valid numerical premises from which to proceed. You have suggested the following: “take all of the quantified good outcomes to others (which realize their preferences…)… and subtract all of the quantified bad outcomes (which violate their interests)... Now, compare that number to the number arrived at for all other known possible actions… the highest number is the most moral action to take.” Surely you recognize the impossibility of determining a significant number of certain, static values to make this formula workable, given the nature of the question at hand – morality.

Morality has yet to be proven objective in this conversation, as per the above arguments. How can we quantify “good” and “bad” actions when we cannot establish definitions for those terms based upon an objective standard? How can we determine what “their preferences” or “their interests” are with certainty, when both parties are wholly subjective beings and the only means by which we may determine these things are imperfect?

Communication of both preferences and interests is not even an option with animals, but even for humans it is not certain. They may communicate ineffectively, or deceptively. They may be mistaken about their own interests, for “even the very wise cannot see all ends”. Their preferences are subjective, and vary from person to person. People often prefer things that are not in their own best interests. Finally, the idea of quantifying “all other known possible actions” is obviously fraught with uncertainty, as it is dependent upon our ability to accurately know all other possible actions.

THIRD QUESTION:
How then, do you suppose that mathematics, bereft of valid numerical premises, is an appropriate means by which objectivity can be determined?

I will not impose upon your good nature further; this will suffice for now. Needless to say, in the absence of satisfactory answers to these questions, I don’t see how we can proceed to make assertions about the objectivity of morality using these systems. It seems to me that you are using the term “objective” loosely. The morality you describe is established subjectively, based upon preference, and then held “objectively” in the face of temporary whims and caprice. We set it up subjectively, then adhere to it as if it were objective; we enact discipline in the service of an arbitrary system. This is appropriate for guiding one's own actions, but clearly this will not serve as solid footing for asserting an objective moral imperative.

Thank you for giving this topic so much thought and attention. We’re all wearing the same jersey; that of the truth-seekers. Whatever we find will no doubt include a justification of our individuality – as it is our inherent nature – but with an underlying, unifying factor which compels us all necessarily. I think this is the key to a harmonious world culture that respects differences, but stands in joint recognition of eternal wisdom.

But again, the best way to understand what some of us were trying to say, is to actively engage in the conversation. It would be good to know something about you, not necessarily you as a person, but your ideas, why you are interested in the topic and what you think about morality.

Actually, I was wondering about the ideas presented by the vegan community. It wasn't until my exposure to the ideas of veganism that I finally took serious consideration to these topics. I agree with McKenna in saying that "The best idea wins." Morality is subjective, as far as I know, and I believe I made that clear before. The counter point to this is that morality is objective, and as I pointed out in page 2 of this thread, it must require consensus for it to be objective.

You’ve stated that the objectivity of morality is “proved by logic” but this would require that logic itself be proven to be an effective means of establishing objectivity. Logic is a system concerning the arrangement of thought. It is wholly dependent upon thought, much like mathematics is wholly dependent upon numbers. There cannot be logic without thought.

Logic deals with relationships between truths. Following and understanding those associations requires a thought process, but for those associations to merely be there does not need to be thought.

Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.
It's 3.14159265359... etc. whether there's somebody there to count it or not. This was not invented, it was discovered. There's nothing subjective to it.

A tree falling in the forest when there's nobody there to hear it does make sound (physics), but you could say it doesn't make any "noise" because there's nobody there to judge it unpleasant and be irritated by it.

I feel like I shouldn't have to explain why logic is true, since it's a prerequisite to any rational discussion; discussions like these can not occur unless you already accept logic.

If you do not agree, then you disagree fundamentally with the concept that we can have knowledge of any kind (everything is true/false/subjective), or you believe all knowledge is founded on faith like Sye Ten Bruggencate (look him up). Neither of those things represent a person who is sincerely seeking truth, because the former has already decided there can be no truth, and the latter is certain beyond any doubt or ability to be convinced otherwise that he or she already has it.

Thought is a wholly subjective phenomenon. Thought does not exist without a thinker, and a thinker is necessarily subjective. Logic, being wholly dependent upon a subjective phenomenon, must be deemed wholly subjective, as there is no objective ingredient in its construction.

You just attempted to use logic to prove logic doesn't work. Do you not see the problem with this?
If it's all subjective, then there is and can not be any truth.

1. Thought is not wholly subjective, it can be anchored in objective processes like logic and mathematics. However, it is usually influenced by bias which is subjective. That's why we have science and formal logic to help reveal or and/or eliminate those biases and lead us to objective truths.

2. A thought is a kind of information structure that deals with facts, opinions, and relationships between them. Whether the thought is subjective or objective depends on its contents (facts and valid logic would yield an objective thought, opinions a subjective one).
Saying thought doesn't exist without a thinker is an attempt -- like the watchmaker argument against evolution that claims creation must have a creator -- to define two things in terms of each other as a matter of semantic trickery.
A thought, as an idea, can be recorded on paper just as a computer program can be recorded on a disk (or punch paper, if you like). In the brain, they're recorded by connections between neurons. Information systems can be physical things.

3. A thinker is not subjective; a thinker is a physical being processing information which exists in objective reality. A thinker may or may not hold and process subjective thoughts. If you think a physical thing is subjective, there are more serious problems with your view of reality than can probably not be addressed here.

4. I already explained why logic is not dependent on thought; it's an expression of a relationship between ideas. Only following and understanding a logical argument requires thought. Logic is constructed of objective axioms, the only way to attempt to introduce subjectivity into logic is to use subjective premises; in these cases, the premises have no truth value and any logic that follows from them is invalid (that is to say, "subjective" logic is not logic, it's invalid, it is failed logic). Logic is by its nature 100% objective, anything that violates that isn't logic.

FIRST QUESTION:
How then, do you suppose that logic – an arrangement of subjective thought – is an effective means by which objectivity can be determined?

I don't, because that's not what logic is.
That's like a creationist asking an evolutionary biologist how he or she supposes humans just randomly popped into existence. That's not what evolution claims.

Are we clear on that?
Because if you don't understand or agree with logic, it's really impossible to have a productive conversation. Without logic, either you believe there is no truth, or your truth is based on faith, neither of which is conducive to sincerely seeking truth.

If we're clear about logic and you understand/agree now, we can move on and I'll answer the remaining questions.

Logic deals with relationships between truths. Following and understanding those associations requires a thought process, but for those associations to merely be there does not need to be thought.

I understand the apparency of this assertion -- it certainly seems to be the case -- but it's rooted in the assumption that objective reality exists independent of a thinker/observer. The notion that logic exists independent of thought is merely just another thought. If it is not an assumption (albeit so deeply rooted that it appears self-evident), then where is the proof of this assertion? Show me how logic exists objectively and independently without simply saying "it just does!"

The same goes for pi and the falling tree. The assertions you've made in regard to these phenomena are assumptions; they cannot be proven to exist independent of a thinker. An arrangment cannot exist without the things to be arranged, except as an idea. There is no square without something that is square. If every thing and thinker in the universe were to disappear, where is a square? Unless you are suggesting the objective reality of Plato's forms, it is nowhere; it ceases to exist.

Now, logic may be a prerequisite to a rational discussion, but this is not a problem since (contrary to your accusation) I have not claimed that logic doesn't work; only that it works as an arrangement of thought. I am using thoughts to make my argument to you and influence your thoughts, so logic is being used appropriately and exists within this subjective context. My only objection is that logic was being cited as an effective means by which we may prove the existence of an objective standard of morality.

As for thoughts being written on paper, etc., that is simply crooked lines on a page until perceived and interpreted by a thinker, thus creating thought. Thoughts on paper are thoughts when written by a thinker, thoughts when read by a thinker, and nothing in the space between these two occurrences. There are no thoughts without thinkers; this is necessarily implied.

Yes, much like the creationist's argument -- a creation would necessarily imply a creator -- but to define the universe as a creation is an unfounded assertion. We are not debating the definition of thought, only whether it can exist without a thinker. The two arguments differ in this critical regard.

If you do not agree, then you disagree fundamentally with the concept that we can have knowledge of any kind... If it's all subjective, then there is and can not be any truth.

We can have knowledge -- certain knowledge -- of our subjective experience. Our experience is true as such. When we experience something, that experience is certain and true, whether it refers to something that exists objectively or not. Nothing could be more logical than the realization that we cannot have certain knowledge about something that we are not experiencing. In the common context of assumed objectivity, it's like asking what a fish is doing at the bottom of the ocean right now. You don't know until you go check. To speak of the unseen fish in any way is to deal in pure assumption; outright fantasy.

Now, to extend the metaphor to illustrate the actual indisputable truth of the matter... If I go check on the fish and report back to you, you know the experience of my words and the ideas they produce with certainty, but you know nothing about the objective existence of the alleged fish. If 1,000 scientists examine the fish and show you videos, you know the visual experience of watching the videos with certainty, but nothing about the objective existence of the alleged fish. If you dive down yourself and see the fish swimming, you know the visual experience of seeing a fish with certainty, but nothing of the objective reality of the fish.

The claim that science, logic, and mathematics lead us to objective truths could only be proven by the submission of an objective truth which has been derived via these methods. Show me an objective truth. Show me a fact that has not been passed through the filter of subjectivity and thus had its claim to objectivity irrevocably marred. Millions of people seeing the sun does not prove that the sun exists independent of a perceiver. In fact, noting that millions of people see the sun is merely a single instance of perception being experienced by you, as you have no access to the experience of others.

I asked how you suppose that logic is an effective means by which objectivity can be determined, to which you replied that you don't, because that's not what logic does. But you explicitly claimed that morality is objective, as proven by logic, in a previous post. How does logic prove objective morality?

Given we have the scientific method that give us predictive capability to know that a specific type of fish is likely to be at location A, is it not best to use that predictive capability in approaching the world with some very minimal moral precepts that are likely to improve everyone's quality of life? If a majority applied it by mathematical certainty of good ends?

The notion that logic exists independent of thought is merely just another thought.

That's an anti-knowledge assertion.
All ideas and concepts can be thoughts, that doesn't mean there are merely thought; some of them are also true of reality.
Some concepts may also not currently be known or thought of, but that doesn't mean they aren't valid concepts, or that they aren't physically real.

The concept of matter? Energy? These are ideas/thoughts. And yet they also objectively exist (although I assume you would dispute this).

If you wanted to discuss the is-aught problem, that would be a conversation we can have.
You can't come here asking us to disprove hard solipsism or prove that reality exists and that magical thinking is false. When you completely reject the foundations of science and logic, there's nothing to discuss on a forum based on those things.

It's interesting to note that carnists have to dismiss science and logic to retreat from vegan ethics. I think this "discussion" stands as testament to that.

If it is not an assumption (albeit so deeply rooted that it appears self-evident), then where is the proof of this assertion? Show me how logic exists objectively and independently without simply saying "it just does!"

I'm uninterested in wasting my time trying to convince somebody that logic is true, and that objective reality exists.
That logic is a valid mechanism to reach truths is a premise we require people here to accept for sake of argument.

If you do not personally believe it, that's fine. But if you can not tentatively accept it for the purposes of having a discussion, that's a problem.

I don't need to prove it; we assume logic is true and meaningful by having a discussion.

An arrangment cannot exist without the things to be arranged, except as an idea. There is no square without something that is square. If every thing and thinker in the universe were to disappear, where is a square? Unless you are suggesting the objective reality of Plato's forms, it is nowhere; it ceases to exist.

A square is not a thing that physically exists; it's a concept, a mathematical ideal. It tells us things about reality to the extent those real objects approach that ideal. That's why we have margins of error in science; it doesn't invalidate science, it makes it useful.

The concept of "square" can not disappear or cease to exist, because it's not a physical thing. It can cease to be known or understood, but it can always be rediscovered. You can't destroy a concept, you can only destroy knowledge of the concept.

That doesn't mean real things are caused by or reflecting a particular conceptual ideal as Plato imagined. The space of all logically consistent concepts is practically infinite and continuous/non-discrete.

I am using thoughts to make my argument to you and influence your thoughts,

If you reject objective reality, why do you objectively believe that subjective thoughts exist? That's absurd.

Nothing in logic applies to subjective thoughts; they do not function as premises. That's not logic. Such premises don't work.

Logic applies only to things presumed to be objectively true, including but not limited to objective concepts that accurately represent real things -- and if they do, then it applies to reality.

If a concept accurately represents reality, the same applies to both the concept and the real thing.
You can reject objective reality in entirety, but that doesn't make you more reasonable: it makes any discussion all the more pointless.

My only objection is that logic was being cited as an effective means by which we may prove the existence of an objective standard of morality.

I demonstrated how. Do you have a problem with any of my premises?
Do you have a problem with the logical arguments that follow?

If not, then you can not reject the conclusion without rejecting logic. This is how logic is appropriately used.
If you're not using it that way, you're both failing to use logic and asserting bad definitions.

As for thoughts being written on paper, etc., that is simply crooked lines on a page until perceived and interpreted by a thinker, thus creating thought.

We're talking about concepts. A "thought" is also an idea or set of contextual information, I was clear about this before; again you're using deceptive language (like the creationists) to try to force your conclusion into the premise. That's not appropriate.

You may be talking about language, where the sender and receiver already have a preconceived notion of a word's meaning (possibly a different one form each other, or possibly very similar if language is working) and it's encoded then interpreted at the respective ends, but not present in the word.
This is a naive understanding of information and deduction on your part. Not all encoding is linguistically encrypted.

Symbolic representations can reflect reality through mathematics, chemistry, physics. Pure information -- without the receiver knowing anything ahead of time of their meaning from the sender -- can be deduced to have meaning as long as the receiver is a reasonably intelligent rational mind.
DNA is a good example; it is not a language, and yet it conveys functional information through its mechanics which can be deduced by an appropriately intelligent receiver.

They were also physically encoded information systems in the form of connected neurons in the thinker.
You could splash a map of the neurons directly on to the page if needed, and with enough intelligence it could be interpreted.
Of course a thought can be transcribed onto paper; an entire mind could be as a freeze-frame.

If you don't call that a thought because it's frozen in time, then call it an idea or a concept instead.
Trying to imply that these things can only exist within an active and thinking mind is deceptive use of language to push your conclusion into the premise.

thoughts when read by a thinker, and nothing in the space between these two occurrences.

Only if there's inadequate information to deduce the concept, or the necessary information has been lost.

Ideas, however, properly written can be recorded on paper and then not merely interpreted on the other end, but deduced.
Radio waves or other media would be fine too.
They're deduced through accurate correlation with basic concepts in logic.
We could send a signal, and get back something we could understand that gives us unified field despite no prior contact.

But even if you're talking about linguistic encoding, it's incorrect to say ideas can't be held on paper; unique combinations of concepts as symbols (which were known ahead of time) can convey ideas previously unknown to the receiver. Of course this requires a Rosetta stone to decode, but there can still be "new" information there not included in the decoder. Linguistic constructs mirror mental ones.

Ideas don't need to be transmitted in anything, though; they can be discovered through mere deduction from reason alone.
Look at calculus; not invented, but independently discovered by Newton and Leibniz.

It's absurd to believe that calculus wasn't valid before it was "made up" and then worked only because people believed it did, or whatever nonsense you believe about mathematics. Like the world is made of fairies born of our subjective beliefs to become real, but only for people who believe.

We are not debating the definition of thought, only whether it can exist without a thinker. The two arguments differ in this critical regard.

You're defining all concepts as only existing subjectively in a thinker. You're precisely as deceptive here in shoehorning your conclusion into the premise. Your conclusions are more transparently absurd, though.

If it is not an assumption (albeit so deeply rooted that it appears self-evident), then where is the proof of this assertion? Show me how certain knowledge of subjective thought exists objectively and independently without simply saying "it just does!"

You sound like some SJW snowflake.
Experiences are very prone to bias, delusion, false memory. They're also prone to be lied about or invented on the spot, we even lie to ourselves about experiences. Your cognition could be fried, you may have a split personality, or a thought incomprehensible to you, something in flux from instant to instant or innately contradictory.
You can't absolutely trust anything in your mind.

If I go check on the fish and report back to you, you know the experience of my words and the ideas they produce with certainty,

No I don't. I assume it because it's required for sanity. The same way we must assume the consistency of our own logical reasoning unless demonstrated otherwise, and the same way we must assume we have some glimpse into reality (however imperfect due to error in perception) and aren't in a solipsistic state.

You're asking for one assumption without proof, and then denying others that are every bit as essential for no reason other than you don't like the logical conclusions you can be brought to if you accept them.

The claim that science, logic, and mathematics lead us to objective truths could only be proven by the submission of an objective truth which has been derived via these methods.

Logic does so, provided the premises are accepted as credible; and not all premises are empirical. It can also provide proof by contradiction, which doesn't rely on unique premises at all. The only "uncertainty" there is your own internal reasoning, which again as I said must be trusted as a prerequisite for sanity.
If you want an example: the incompatibility of omniscience and "free will", or the internal contradiction of omnipotence.

Empirical science is provisional and gives us answers with various degrees of confidence. That's a little different, but it doesn't make them subjective. Uncertainty does not poison the knowledge to the point of uselessness. It only becomes 99% useful, or 95% useful, or whatever the confidence interval is.

There are two boxes, A and B. You have to choose one to save with the other being incinerated with its contents, and you know there's a 99% chance your family is in box A and a 1% chance they're in box B. Assuming you want to save your family and have no other means the rational choice to make is to save box A.

Proof by contradiction.
Empirical confidence as probability (although you can criticize methodology, this is based in mathematics, particularly for hard sciences).Moral certainty in decision making based on empirical probability.

Millions of people seeing the sun does not prove that the sun exists independent of a perceiver. In fact, noting that millions of people see the sun is merely a single instance of perception being experienced by you, as you have no access to the experience of others.

That's not how science works; it's not an appeal to a large number of anecdotes. We have methodology to control for bias.
We do have to have some trust in our senses to avoid complete insanity, though.
Again: moral certainty is what matters.